2020 PLP 56 (YLRN)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD alias MASOOD — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 PLP 56 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Larkana Bench) |
| Bench Members | Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh, J |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD alias MASOOD — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 56 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 56 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Larkana Bench) bench comprising: Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 56 (YLRN) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD alias MASOOD — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- 2. Learned Advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that there is delay of one day in lodgment of FIR without proper explanation thereof; that the complainant by throwing very wide net has implicated almost all the male members of the accused party, who are numbering eight including the applicant. Of them, seven accused are brothers inter se and whereas 8th one is their father; that there is conflict in medical and ocular evidence; that all the co-accused are on bail except the applicant; that the offence with which the applicant is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C; and, that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the complainant party with mala fide intention due to previous hostility between the parties over landed property. Learned counsel states that the applicant has since joined the trial and he is regularly attending the trial Court, he, therefore, prays that the ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant may be confirmed. Learned Advocate for the complainant opposes the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, stating that the delay in lodgment of the FIR has been explained properly; and, that the applicant is assigned specific role of causing lathi injury on ; right arm shoulder of Altaf Hussain. Learned counsel prays for dismissal of the bail application. Learned D.P.G after going through the police papers submits that in FIR three persons, namely, Mst. Atiya Khatoon, Altaf Hussain and Mansoor were shown injured but there is no medical certificate for alleged injured Mansoor and further endorsing the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant, has raised no objection to confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the applicant, who has since joined his trial and is not alleged to have misused the concession of pre-arrest bail, has made out his case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant vide order dated 20.08.2019 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 452, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 114, 148 & 149
House trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, abettor present when offence committed, rioting, unlawful assembly
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Delay of one day in lodgment of FIR
Conflict in medical and ocular evidence
Co-accused persons already on bail
Offence with which the accused was charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.
Accused had joined the trial and was not alleged to have misused the concession of bail
Application was allowed and ad-interim bail earlier granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances. Ghulam Rasool Narejo for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.
By means of this bail application, applicant Ghulam Muhammad alias Masood seeks pre-arrest bail in the case, emanating from FIR No. 50 of 2019 registered at Police Station Warrah for offence under sections 452, 337-A(i) A(ii), F(i), F(ii), 114, 148, 149, P.P.C. after his plea for pre-arrest bail has been declined by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shahdadkot at Kamber by dismissing his bail application vide order dated 05.08.2019.
2. Learned Advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that there is delay of one day in lodgment of FIR without proper explanation thereof; that the complainant by throwing very wide net has implicated almost all the male members of the accused party, who are numbering eight including the applicant. Of them, seven accused are brothers inter se and whereas 8th one is their father; that there is conflict in medical and ocular evidence; that all the co-accused are on bail except the applicant; that the offence with which the applicant is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C; and, that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the complainant party with mala fide intention due to previous hostility between the parties over landed property. Learned counsel states that the applicant has since joined the trial and he is regularly attending the trial Court, he, therefore, prays that the ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant may be confirmed. Learned Advocate for the complainant opposes the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, stating that the delay in lodgment of the FIR has been explained properly; and, that the applicant is assigned specific role of causing lathi injury on ; right arm shoulder of Altaf Hussain. Learned counsel prays for dismissal of the bail application. Learned D.P.G after going through the police papers submits that in FIR three persons, namely, Mst. Atiya Khatoon, Altaf Hussain and Mansoor were shown injured but there is no medical certificate for alleged injured Mansoor and further endorsing the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant, has raised no objection to confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the applicant, who has since joined his trial and is not alleged to have misused the concession of pre-arrest bail, has made out his case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant vide order dated 20.08.2019 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
3. Observations made herein above are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application, which shall not in any manner influence the learned trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case. ADN/G-47/Sindh Bail confirmed.